logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.05.27 2019나1259
공사대금
Text

1. Of the part regarding the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 53,502,095 against the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant).

Reasons

Basic Facts

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

The plaintiff is a company operating mechanical equipment construction business, etc., and the defendant is a company conducting soup and soup.

On November 27, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract for construction work with the Defendant, the contractor, and the construction cost of KRW 375,00,000 (including value-added tax) with respect to D private house projects operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant First Project”).

On May 11, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract for construction work with the Defendant, the contractor, the Plaintiff, and the construction cost of KRW 99,00,000 (including value-added tax) with respect to the D mechanical room pipeline construction work (hereinafter “instant 2 construction work”).

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract for construction work on May 11, 2015 with respect to the Plaintiff’s claim for the main claim of the entire pleadings, as well as the Defendant, the contractor, the Plaintiff, the construction cost, 58,300,000 won, separately from the instant Nos. 1 and 2.

However, the Defendant paid the first construction cost of this case, but only KRW 88,00,000 out of the second construction cost of this case and KRW 11,000,000 in total and KRW 58,30,000 in total, and KRW 69,300,00 in total, were liable to pay to the Plaintiff.

Judgment

The fact that the Defendant did not pay KRW 11 million to the Plaintiff out of the 1 and 2 construction costs of the instant case does not conflict between the parties.

According to the appraisal result of the additional construction cost of appraiser E in the first instance trial on the instant supplementary construction work, the Plaintiff may acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff performed the construction work for the same item as the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “the instant additional construction work”) in consultation with the Defendant, and the expenses incurred in the existing construction cost and the additional construction work, and the size of the construction work.

arrow